[The Guru]

Guru,

Your attitude is a good example of what is wrong with high school athletics. Where a child goes to school or who he plays for should be completely based on his parents wishes. It should have nothing to do with the whinning of a coach whose poor behavior (or performance) probably ran the kid off in the first place. These are high school kids in the custody of their parents.

The KHSAA is a politcally corrupt organization that rarely rules in favor of the student involved. It is a waste of tax payer money. An investigation costs $25,000 or more. For what, to interfere in the constitutional rights of the student. What is the point?

The rules should be designed to protect the student not the coaches involved. Coaches rarely have the best interest of the student in mind. They only care about about protecting their ego's or showing a student (or family) they can penalize them for leaving. It is a crock.

Would you care to elaborate on where or why my attitude is what is wrong with high school athletics?
I would surely like to defend my position.

[HazzBeen]

Prestonsburg was third in ACT scores behind Paintsville and Pikeville, out of the region. So I don't think academics have any type of play in this.

I don't think that he is enrolled just yet, he and his father and brother visited the school today, and I was told by some of the players that he wants to play here. I don't think academics had anything to do with his transfer, I believe it was just for football.

Well if the KHSAA finds out it is just for athletics, he will never be eligible.

[BlackcatAlum]

Well if the KHSAA finds out it is just for athletics, he will never be eligible.

I don't know if thats what its for, but I don't think that KHSAA would ever be able to find out anyways if that was the case.

[Lisa Douglas]

I have watched the class of '09 and '10 follow in the footsteps of '07 and '08 for the past 10 years. And you want to know something. "09 &'10 has never, ever disappointed! Never! Even though they never got any respect even from so called fans! Never! But can anyone out there say where this bunch from '09 and'10 have disappointed? These two classes might not have had as much talent or athletes that some fill the classes of '07 and '08 have just oooooozed with. '09 and '10 have got the job done with HEART, PRIDE and DESIRE!!! It sure as **** hasn't been from support other than their parrents! And IMO!!!! THAT GOES A HECK OF A LOT FARTHER!!!
IF NEHEMIAH GOES!!! THEN GOOD RIDENCE!!! WHAT TEAM NEEDS THAT

Let me say this.......If it works out that Nehemiah can't get eligible and stays at Paintsville, If I were Kinner, I'd dare Nehemiahs dad to even think about getting near the field.!

Okay... I am reading and re-reading these two posts and see nowhere a sign that the guru's opinion was "what was bad about high school sports" .....
I see it as a truthful opinion of this situation. I'm not getting into this doderer thing because I just flat don't care. They've come and gone, well, they're going again............. that's what they do. Go forth and prosper. As for the classes of '09 & '10, he's right about that. I've kept silent about it because I didn't want to hurt feelings, but he's right. And as for the kid getting eligible, if he doesn't, I know Coach Kinner will welcome him, as will the other boys. If he welcomes the dad, then he's a fine person and is looking out for his team and showing that he's big enough to forgive a parent, no matter how misguided their actions. As for the Guru's opinion... I'd say a large number of parents would agree.... so there it is sports fans. Have a nice day and Go Big Blue!

[gish]

Well if the KHSAA finds out it is just for athletics, he will never be eligible.

That is just pure speculation though. The is no concrete evidence that could be found that could prove that it was soley just for athletics.

[Possum Bait]

Guru,

I am not trying to offend you, but based on your posts, it seems that you are hoping this child does not retain his eligibility. You may have legitimate reasons for disliking him or his family. The point I am trying to make is that regardless of how obnoxious his dad might be, the KHSAA should not be allowed to interfere with his decision's regarding where his children attend school or participate in sports.

The family should not even have to move to retain eligibility. The KHSAA rules as written to serve the best interest's of coaches not the student. The rules do nothing except hold kids hostage in bad situations.

[Possum Bait]

Guru,

To take my argument a little further, the football field is a public domain. The football coach or superintendent (for that matter) do not have the right to bar anyone from the football unless they pose a physical threat to the student body.

It takes a very small minded coach to punish a kid because he does not like the kid's father. It happens all the time, but it is wrong.

Again the focus should be on the child's best interest not the ego of the coach. Coaches are public servants whose salaries are payed by the public.

[tigerfan13]

As for this case goes....for someone to transfer their child out of a school that they teach at says a lot about the individual. I dont think it has anything to do with the football program for next year, I think it has to do with bitterness. Bitterness over not getting hired for a position he applied for, so he decideds to up and move his son to another school. Is that in the best interest of the child? Some may say yes, some may say no but the real matter here is it doesn't matter how good you are on the field or how many times you transer, if you don't make the grades your chances of playing at the next level are slim. Best of luck to all involved and if he goes, he goes. Not a big loss to the tigers anyway. Paintsvillle is going to be strong next year and for many years to come. With the new coaching staff and more kids coming out actually wanting to play for these coaches, I think a lot of people will be surprised at what the tigers bring to the field this year. GO TIGERS!!

[The Guru]

Guru,

I am not trying to offend you,
You are not offending me at all...puzzleing the crap out of me though!

but based on your posts, it seems that you are hoping this child does not retain his eligibility. You may have legitimate reasons for disliking him or his family.
I have never ever said anything close to these remarks???:confused:

The point I am trying to make is that regardless of how obnoxious his dad might be,
Hans and I have always been very friendly with each other, and I would not say anything on here that I wouldn't say in person, most everyone knows who I am and I have said my real name on here many times. And I have never referred to him as obnoxious!!! That part is hillarious!


the KHSAA should not be allowed to interfere with his decision's regarding where his children attend school or participate in sports.
The KHSAA absolutely has to govern these things or else you would end up with about five schools in the state that even have sports!!! Granted they need lessons in reality but they have to govern this stuff!



The family should not even have to move to retain eligibility. The KHSAA rules as written to serve the best interest's of coaches not the student. The rules do nothing except hold kids hostage in bad situations.

I almost totally agree with this statement, but it is the rules.

[The Guru]

Guru,

To take my argument a little further, the football field is a public domain. The football coach or superintendent (for that matter) do not have the right to bar anyone from the football unless they pose a physical threat to the student body.

It takes a very small minded coach to punish a kid because he does not like the kid's father. It happens all the time, but it is wrong.

Again the focus should be on the child's best interest not the ego of the coach. Coaches are public servants whose salaries are payed by the public.

I have no idea where you got that these statements come within a thousand miles of this situation?????????

I mean....these are very good points, but I think they need put in a thread that they might pertain to.

[BlackcatAlum]

Lets try and keep this thread civilized... Off-topic posts will be deleted.

[Possum Bait]

Blackcat/Guru,

I appologize if I misinterpreted the comments.

I thought that Guru said he would forbid the kid (involved in the discussion) from being near the football field.


I do not know the situation or anyone involved. Reading through the posts if sounds to me like many people are saying that they do not particularly like the dad involved with this transfer. It also sounds as if many hope the kid losses his eligibility. Other statements seem to infer that if the child returned to the original school due to the eligibilty issue , the new coach should not let him play.

My point of emphasis is that the KHSAA should play no role in this matter. The child should go to school where ever his parents want to send him. As with most of the KHSAA rules, the transfer rule is probably not constitutional. As a minimum it is not consistant across the state because several schools have open districts. Ultimately, the only one that is damaged is the child.

The recruiting rule (Section 10) covers everything that should play any role in a situation like this. The tranfer rule should be eliminated.




My second point of emphasis is that in the event the child returns to his old school, the coaches personal feelings about the father should not affect the manner in which he treats the son. Additionaly, the father has every right to be in the football stadium regardless of what the coach thinks.


The child's welfare is really the only thing that should matter. Petty arguments and fusses between the adults involved are meaningless.

[Redneck]

Blackcat/Guru,

I appologize if I misinterpreted the comments.

I thought that Guru said he would forbid the kid (involved in the discussion) from being near the football field.


I do not know the situation or anyone involved. Reading through the posts if sounds to me like many people are saying that they do not particularly like the dad involved with this transfer. It also sounds as if many hope the kid losses his eligibility. Other statements seem to infer that if the child returned to the original school due to the eligibilty issue , the new coach should not let him play.

My point of emphasis is that the KHSAA should play no role in this matter. The child should go to school where ever his parents want to send him. As with most of the KHSAA rules, the transfer rule is probably not constitutional. As a minimum it is not consistant across the state because several schools have open districts. Ultimately, the only one that is damaged is the child.

The recruiting rule (Section 10) covers everything that should play any role in a situation like this. The tranfer rule should be eliminated.




My second point of emphasis is that in the event the child returns to his old school, the coaches personal feelings about the father should not affect the manner in which he treats the son. Additionaly, the father has every right to be in the football stadium regardless of what the coach thinks.


The child's welfare is really the only thing that should matter. Petty arguments and fusses between the adults involved are meaningless.

The KHSAA plays a role in every other transfer situation, why should this be any different.

[BlackcatAlum]

Blackcat/Guru,

I appologize if I misinterpreted the comments.

I thought that Guru said he would forbid the kid (involved in the discussion) from being near the football field.


I do not know the situation or anyone involved. Reading through the posts if sounds to me like many people are saying that they do not particularly like the dad involved with this transfer. It also sounds as if many hope the kid losses his eligibility. Other statements seem to infer that if the child returned to the original school due to the eligibilty issue , the new coach should not let him play.

My point of emphasis is that the KHSAA should play no role in this matter. The child should go to school where ever his parents want to send him. As with most of the KHSAA rules, the transfer rule is probably not constitutional. As a minimum it is not consistant across the state because several schools have open districts. Ultimately, the only one that is damaged is the child.

The recruiting rule (Section 10) covers everything that should play any role in a situation like this. The tranfer rule should be eliminated.




My second point of emphasis is that in the event the child returns to his old school, the coaches personal feelings about the father should not affect the manner in which he treats the son. Additionaly, the father has every right to be in the football stadium regardless of what the coach thinks.


The child's welfare is really the only thing that should matter. Petty arguments and fusses between the adults involved are meaningless.

You didn't do anything wrong, you stated your opinion on the issue and I encourage you to keep doing so on BGR.:thumpsup:

[The Guru]

Blackcat/Guru,

I appologize if I misinterpreted the comments.

I thought that Guru said he would forbid the kid (involved in the discussion) from being near the football field.


I do not know the situation or anyone involved. Reading through the posts if sounds to me like many people are saying that they do not particularly like the dad involved with this transfer. It also sounds as if many hope the kid losses his eligibility. Other statements seem to infer that if the child returned to the original school due to the eligibilty issue , the new coach should not let him play.

My point of emphasis is that the KHSAA should play no role in this matter. The child should go to school where ever his parents want to send him. As with most of the KHSAA rules, the transfer rule is probably not constitutional. As a minimum it is not consistant across the state because several schools have open districts. Ultimately, the only one that is damaged is the child.

The recruiting rule (Section 10) covers everything that should play any role in a situation like this. The tranfer rule should be eliminated.




My second point of emphasis is that in the event the child returns to his old school, the coaches personal feelings about the father should not affect the manner in which he treats the son. Additionaly, the father has every right to be in the football stadium regardless of what the coach thinks.


The child's welfare is really the only thing that should matter. Petty arguments and fusses between the adults involved are meaningless.

I think you might have misunderstood the posts somewhat and please, no need for an apollogy.
To let you know, I know of noone that has any ill feelings against the kid, or any of his family. They are very nice people.
The Dad did apply for the coaching position at PHS, he was not chosen and then the talk of his son transfering started. It might have nothing to do with that, but a lot think it is sour grapes on the Dad's behalf. What everyone is talking about on the eligibilty issue is that we all know how difficult that it has become with the KHSAA.:Thumbs:

[Possum Bait]

Guru,

It sounds like sour grapes from a somewhat difficult parent. Every school has them. Heck, my sons coaches think I am difficult. Every situation is different and there are usually two sides to every argument.

As a parent who has been involved with the school systems in Eastern Kentucky my entire life, I have come to expect the worst from these situations. The adults involved (both sides) are often petty, vindictive, clueless political pons that routinely make life difficult for the children involved simply to cause other adults grief.

Everything from playing time, preferred position, newpaper clippings to things as simple as who the blunt of the coaches joles might be, often depend on politics and personal conflicts. Being the best player has little to do with who gets to play or who gets the accolades. It is basically a sickening situation that gives what should be a wonderful experience for teenage children a very bad reputation.

Coaches are not the only guilty parties. Teachers, school administrators and parents are all guilty. The adults plot, backbite and fight over childrens games trying to injure other adults. In the end, it always the children that bare most of the pain.

[Possum Bait]

Redneck.

I am very aware that the KHSAA regulates transfers. My point is that they should not. The government has no business being involved with where parents send their children to school.

We need less enforcement not more. The recruiting rule (bylaw 10) covers any potential institutional wrong doing. Bylaw 6 (Transfers ) serves absolutely no purpose other than to violate the rights of parents.

Personally, I think the bylaw 10 should be dropped also. Take a look at the state championships. It is clearly evident that the existing bylaws are not consistently enforced. Money and politics dictate where and when the rules are enforced.

I say downsize the KHSAA to an organization that ensures the safety of the game , reviews officials and maintains the game rules. There is no other useful purpose for them. Save the tax payers some money.

[Redneck]

Redneck.

I am very aware that the KHSAA regulates transfers. My point is that they should not. The government has no business being involved with where parents send their children to school.

We need less enforcement not more. The recruiting rule (bylaw 10) covers any potential institutional wrong doing. Bylaw 6 (Transfers ) serves absolutely no purpose other than to violate the rights of parents.

Personally, I think the bylaw 10 should be dropped also. Take a look at the state championships. It is clearly evident that the existing bylaws are not consistently enforced. Money and politics dictate where and when the rules are enforced.

I say downsize the KHSAA to an organization that ensures the safety of the game , reviews officials and maintains the game rules. There is no other useful purpose for them. Save the tax payers some money.

The point is this kid is transferrin for ATHLETICS, NOT FOR THE EDUCATION.

[Possum Bait]

Redneck,

The reason he is tranferring is that his parents feel the transfer is positive move for the child.

Motives are completely subjective. How can you prove what his motives are?

As I said Bylaw 10 covers institutional wrong doing. Bylaw 6 does nothing more than provide a means to violate the constitutional rights of parents.

[OffTheHook]

Redneck,

The reason he is tranferring is that his parents feel the transfer is positive move for the child.

Motives are completely subjective. How can you prove what his motives are?

As I said Bylaw 10 covers institutional wrong doing. Bylaw 6 does nothing more than provide a means to violate the constitutional rights of parents.

Yeah, But, by the time you get done fighting these "constitutional rights" in court, the season is over. So, why take a chance.

[The Guru]

Redneck,

The reason he is tranferring is that his parents feel the transfer is positive move for the child.

What could possibly be positive?
He isn't guaranteed playing time. Like people said about the Yates kid ealier. Yates was much better than this kid IMO, and played very little. If it is so positive, then why was the dad wanting the coaching job at Paintsville?

Motives are completely subjective. How can you prove what his motives are?
It's as plain as it can be.

As I said Bylaw 10 covers institutional wrong doing. Bylaw 6 does nothing more than provide a means to violate the constitutional rights of parents.

...

[Possum Bait]

Yes, the exclusions in BYlaw 6 do create an opportunity to litigate. Litigation costs the tax payer money.

The only person that has to see the positive is the parent. My whole point is that the decision should be the parents.

The parent's motives are none of the school's, coaches' or KHSAA's business.

Two questions come to mind.

1) Why would anyone want to punish the kid by making him sit out of sports?

2)Why would any coach want a kid to stay that did not want to stay?


I do not understand either position. Both are childish and vindictive.

[The Guru]

Yes, the exclusions in BYlaw 6 do create an opportunity to litigate. Litigation costs the tax payer money.

The only person that has to see the positive is the parent. My whole point is that the decision should be the parents.

The parent's motives are none of the school's, coaches' or KHSAA's business.

Two questions come to mind.

1) Why would anyone want to punish the kid by making him sit out of sports?

2)Why would any coach want a kid to stay that did not want to stay?


I do not understand either position. Both are childish and vindictive.

We all should know that the reason for the KHSAA to regulate transfers is to try and stop recruiting. Personally, I think they should. And to do so, they have to set guidelines. Of course in guidelines, it does create problems with some just trying to do what is best for their kid. But the KHSAA cannot bend on these rules or they would be useless. Therefor with that in mind, we as parents have a decision to make. And that is, we either follow the guidelines and do the transfer accordingly, or transfer and have our son sit out for a year. That may be hard either finacialy, mentally or both, but it is simple.
In this case, if the family picks up and moves and then enrolls their kids there, then everything is fine.
But what people on here are saying is that this family has been building a log home and working on this farm for a long time and they don't think that this family will give up this dream home.

[BlueStripes]

Well i dont see the point of making this a thread when Nehemiah is still at Paintsville and was at weight lifting today. Any way he told me he was staying at Paintsville.

[Possum Bait]

Guru,

I agee with you that the intent is stop recruiting. The primary point that i am making is that Bylaw 10 covers institutional wrong doing or recruiting.

Bylaw 6 has nothing to do with recruiting. Bylaw 6, as written, basically holds families hostage to the school inwhich their kids are enrolled. Basically, it says that kids have to change addresses to change schools. It goes further to state that even if a child changes addresses, he is still not eligible if his move was in whole or part athletically motivated.

The exclusions to the change of address waiver do nothing except provide a means of tying up a transferred student in court. The exclusions are all subjective and impossible to prove. Who can really say what a parents motivation might be?

Bylaw 10 has some value, but is very difficult to enforce. It is clearly not enforced fairly across the state. Parental rights should prevail even if another institution has invited or encouraged the transfer.


Bylaw 6 has no value. It is clearly a violation of parental rights as well as the rights of the student.


It really comes down to whether you believe that a parent has the right to send his children to the school of his choice without penalty.

I personally believe the government has no right to interfere with my parental decisions.

The penalty provides a way for coaches and institutions to hold kids hostage. Think about it. A coach can basically treat a kid in any he wishes knowing the kid cannot transfer with 1) a prolonged court battle or 2) sitting out of sports for a year.


In college a transfer has to sit out a year but they lose no eligibility. Bylaw 6 actually forces a child to forfiet a year of eligibility.


Again, I can imagine how a coach or institution can justify a protested transfer.

It seems vindictive to me. What purpose does it really serve?

[BlackcatAlum]

Well i dont see the point of making this a thread when Nehemiah is still at Paintsville and was at weight lifting today. Any way he told me he was staying at Paintsville.

I know that I read on his myspace the other day that it said that he was going to goto Prestonsburg to be a Blackcat. I just looked at it and it doesn't say that anymore.

He may have changed his mind.

I'll change the thread title to a rumor now.